Quran and Some Religious and Moral Teachings of Al-Ghazzali: Deep Tho...

~ As grammar, astrology, medicine, &c. ® Samahi, explained rndtsha, compare first note in the Tenth Lecture. should answer thern’^: ‘You speak thus, wavering between tv^o ways of life (viz. that of householders and monks), (ii) ‘You eat out of the vessels* (of householders, and make them) bring food for a sick brother ; you eat seeds and drink cold water®, and what has been especially prepared (for you when sick). (12) ' You are infected by great faults, you are void of discrimination, and your resolutions are bad. It is not good to scratch a wound too much, for it will grow worse (i 3) They should be instructed in the truth by one who knows it and is free from passions®: ‘Yours is not the right way, you speak and act without con- sideration. (14) ‘ This your talk is weak, like the top of a bamboo, (when you say; a sick brother) may eat the food ' brought by a householder, but not that brought by a monk! (15) ‘ (And when you say tliat) our religious precepts are wholesome only for householders (not for monks, we reply that our prophet had) no such (inconsistent) ideas when he taught (his Law).’ (16) When (these heretics) cannot prove (their asser- tion) by any arguments they g^ve up the discussion, and fall back on their bold (assertion). (17) ‘ According to the A^iwkas or the Digambaras are intended. .

Foolish and inconsiderate men, who have neither wisdom[168] nor instruction, mock and deride us, being eager to exalt themselves in their own conceits. For what can a mortal man do? or what strength is there in one made out of the dust? For it is written, “There was no shape before mine eyes, only I heard a sound,[169] and a voice [saying], What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged[170] even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made! He smote them as a moth; and from morning even until evening they endure not. Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call now, if any one will answer thee, or if thou wilt look to any of the holy angels; for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy killeth him that is in error. I have seen the foolish taking root, but their habitation was presently consumed. Let their sons be far from safety; let them be despised[171] before the gates of those less than themselves, and there shall be none to deliver. For what was prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; and they shall not be delivered from evil.”[172]

Love of God is the highest stage of our soul’s progress and her summum bonum. Repentance, patience, piety, and other virtues are all preliminary steps. Although rare these qualities are found in true devotees and the commonality, though devoid of them, at any rate believe in them. Love of God is not only very rare: the possibility of it is doubted, even by some Ulamas who call it simply service. For, in their opinion love exists amongst species of the same kind, but God being ultra-mundane and not of our kind, His love is an impossibility and hence the much talked of ecstatic states of the “true lovers of God” are mere delusions. As this is far from truth and impedes the progress of the soul, by spreading false notions, we shall briefly discuss the subject. First we shall quote passages from the Quran and the Hadith testifying to the existence of the love of God.

‘And just even so, Vase/^a, though you say that the Brhhmans [are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen], and you further say that [neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahma]. And you further say that even the i?fshis of old, [whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmh is. Yet these Brihmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen!] Now what think you, Vase///*za? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brihmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk! ’ ‘Very good, Vdse///£a. Verily then, Vase/Ma, that Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen— such a condition of things has no existence.’ ‘ And when so asked he should answer “ No.” ’ ‘And people should say to him, “ But then, good friend, you are making a staircase to mount up into something—taking it for a mansion—which, all the while, you know not, neither have seen! ” ‘ And when so asked he should answer “Yes.” ’ ‘Now what think you, VaseZ/Aa? Would it not turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk? ’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk! ’

I hear some of you talking about Death. You seem to think that you will be another order of being as soon as you take your last breath upon earth. You talk about being a "spirit," bye-and-bye. Do I believe this? Of course, I believe it. I know it. But I also know something else, and that is that you are a spirit now, just as much as you will be in another world. Did you think that some wonderful essence was going to grow from you, and that that essence would be what you call a spirit? Nonsense! YOU are the spirit, and the not-you part which will be discarded never was you. The You which says I AM is the real thing--the real self--and the rest of you is but tools and instruments which YOU are using. Why can't you see this? You talk about "my soul," "my spirit," and so on. You make me tired. Why, the thing which is thinking and speaking--YOU--is the "soul" or "spirit" of which you are talking. You talk as if the physical part of you, which is changing continually, was you. You are like the boy with the old knife. He was continually having the knife repaired. He had had seven new blades and three new handles put on it, and yet it was the same old knife. Why, you could step right out of your body (and maybe you do, more than you have any idea of) and it would be the same old YOU. You could discard your body just as you do your clothes, and yet YOU would be the same individual.

So do: and avoid the talk of men. For Talk is mischievous, light, and easily raised, but hard to bear and difficult to be rid of. Talk never wholly dies away when many people voice her: even Talk is in some ways divine.

‘ Then you say, Visez'z'/fci [that not one of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahma face to face. And that even the A’z'shis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down—even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmi is] k So that the Brdhmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: “ What we know not, what we have not seen, to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: ‘ This is the straight path, this is the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahma!”’ ‘ Now what think you,VaseAf/«a? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’

And the bed on which they lay was made of kusa grass upon which was spread their deer-skins. And before going to sleep they talked on diverse subjects in voices deep as of black clouds. The talk of those heroes indicated them to be neither Vaisyas nor Sudras, nor Brahmanas. Without doubt, O monarch, they are bulls amongst Kshatriyas, their discourse having been on military subjects. It seems, O father, that our hope hath been fructified, for we have heard that the sons of Kunti all escaped from the conflagration of the house of lac. From the way in which the mark was shot down by that youth, and the strength with which the bow was strung by him, and the manner in which I have heard them talk with one another proves conclusively, O monarch, that they are the sons of Pritha wandering in disguise.’

~ As grammar, astrology, medicine, &c. ® Samahi, explained rndtsha, compare first note in the Tenth Lecture. should answer thern’^: ‘You speak thus, wavering between tv^o ways of life (viz. that of householders and monks), (ii) ‘You eat out of the vessels* (of householders, and make them) bring food for a sick brother ; you eat seeds and drink cold water®, and what has been especially prepared (for you when sick). (12) ' You are infected by great faults, you are void of discrimination, and your resolutions are bad. It is not good to scratch a wound too much, for it will grow worse (i 3) They should be instructed in the truth by one who knows it and is free from passions®: ‘Yours is not the right way, you speak and act without con- sideration. (14) ‘ This your talk is weak, like the top of a bamboo, (when you say; a sick brother) may eat the food ' brought by a householder, but not that brought by a monk! (15) ‘ (And when you say tliat) our religious precepts are wholesome only for householders (not for monks, we reply that our prophet had) no such (inconsistent) ideas when he taught (his Law).’ (16) When (these heretics) cannot prove (their asser- tion) by any arguments they g^ve up the discussion, and fall back on their bold (assertion). (17) ‘ According to the A^iwkas or the Digambaras are intended. .

Foolish and inconsiderate men, who have neither wisdom[168] nor instruction, mock and deride us, being eager to exalt themselves in their own conceits. For what can a mortal man do? or what strength is there in one made out of the dust? For it is written, “There was no shape before mine eyes, only I heard a sound,[169] and a voice [saying], What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged[170] even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made! He smote them as a moth; and from morning even until evening they endure not. Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call now, if any one will answer thee, or if thou wilt look to any of the holy angels; for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy killeth him that is in error. I have seen the foolish taking root, but their habitation was presently consumed. Let their sons be far from safety; let them be despised[171] before the gates of those less than themselves, and there shall be none to deliver. For what was prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; and they shall not be delivered from evil.”[172]

Love of God is the highest stage of our soul’s progress and her summum bonum. Repentance, patience, piety, and other virtues are all preliminary steps. Although rare these qualities are found in true devotees and the commonality, though devoid of them, at any rate believe in them. Love of God is not only very rare: the possibility of it is doubted, even by some Ulamas who call it simply service. For, in their opinion love exists amongst species of the same kind, but God being ultra-mundane and not of our kind, His love is an impossibility and hence the much talked of ecstatic states of the “true lovers of God” are mere delusions. As this is far from truth and impedes the progress of the soul, by spreading false notions, we shall briefly discuss the subject. First we shall quote passages from the Quran and the Hadith testifying to the existence of the love of God.

‘And just even so, Vase/^a, though you say that the Brhhmans [are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen], and you further say that [neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahma]. And you further say that even the i?fshis of old, [whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmh is. Yet these Brihmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen!] Now what think you, Vase///*za? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brihmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk! ’ ‘Very good, Vdse///£a. Verily then, Vase/Ma, that Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen— such a condition of things has no existence.’ ‘ And when so asked he should answer “ No.” ’ ‘And people should say to him, “ But then, good friend, you are making a staircase to mount up into something—taking it for a mansion—which, all the while, you know not, neither have seen! ” ‘ And when so asked he should answer “Yes.” ’ ‘Now what think you, VaseZ/Aa? Would it not turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk? ’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk! ’

I hear some of you talking about Death. You seem to think that you will be another order of being as soon as you take your last breath upon earth. You talk about being a "spirit," bye-and-bye. Do I believe this? Of course, I believe it. I know it. But I also know something else, and that is that you are a spirit now, just as much as you will be in another world. Did you think that some wonderful essence was going to grow from you, and that that essence would be what you call a spirit? Nonsense! YOU are the spirit, and the not-you part which will be discarded never was you. The You which says I AM is the real thing--the real self--and the rest of you is but tools and instruments which YOU are using. Why can't you see this? You talk about "my soul," "my spirit," and so on. You make me tired. Why, the thing which is thinking and speaking--YOU--is the "soul" or "spirit" of which you are talking. You talk as if the physical part of you, which is changing continually, was you. You are like the boy with the old knife. He was continually having the knife repaired. He had had seven new blades and three new handles put on it, and yet it was the same old knife. Why, you could step right out of your body (and maybe you do, more than you have any idea of) and it would be the same old YOU. You could discard your body just as you do your clothes, and yet YOU would be the same individual.

So do: and avoid the talk of men. For Talk is mischievous, light, and easily raised, but hard to bear and difficult to be rid of. Talk never wholly dies away when many people voice her: even Talk is in some ways divine.

‘ Then you say, Visez'z'/fci [that not one of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahma face to face. And that even the A’z'shis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down—even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmi is] k So that the Brdhmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: “ What we know not, what we have not seen, to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: ‘ This is the straight path, this is the direct way which leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahma!”’ ‘ Now what think you,VaseAf/«a? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?’ ‘ In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’

And the bed on which they lay was made of kusa grass upon which was spread their deer-skins. And before going to sleep they talked on diverse subjects in voices deep as of black clouds. The talk of those heroes indicated them to be neither Vaisyas nor Sudras, nor Brahmanas. Without doubt, O monarch, they are bulls amongst Kshatriyas, their discourse having been on military subjects. It seems, O father, that our hope hath been fructified, for we have heard that the sons of Kunti all escaped from the conflagration of the house of lac. From the way in which the mark was shot down by that youth, and the strength with which the bow was strung by him, and the manner in which I have heard them talk with one another proves conclusively, O monarch, that they are the sons of Pritha wandering in disguise.’